MANJIT SINGH Vs. RATTAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by Manjit Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Owner') against the award passed by Shri B. D. Sharma, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmour district at Nahan in Claim Petition No. 16-N/2 of 1991. Respondents Rattan Singh and Jai Devi (hereinafter referred to as the 'Claimants') filed a claim petition against the owner Shamsher Ali (hereinafter referred to as the 'driver') and National Insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as the 'Insurer'), wherein compensation in the sum of Rs. one lakh was claimed on account of death of the daughter of the claimants Kumari Sunita. According to claimants on 20-10-1990 at 2.30 p.m. Kumari Sunita, deceased was travelling in a truck bearing registration No. HPN-1495 belonging to the owner and the said truck was being driven by the driver at the relevant point of time when it was insured with the Insurer. Further case of the claimants was that the deceased was a fare paying passenger in the truck and she paid Rs.15/- to the driver. When the truck in question had reached near village Khajurna, it met with an accident after striking against a rock as a result of which. Kumari Sunita sustained multiple injuries and breathed her last on the spot. Further plea of the claimants was that the truck was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by the driver which resulted in its overturning after striking with a rock and fell down beyond the road.

(2.) According to claimants, the deceased was earning Rs. 600/- per month by way of helping them in their household and agricultural work and she was their eldest child. As such they were dependent upon her for their livelihood. The driver was proceeded against ex parte, whereas the owner and the insurer contested the claim of the claimants. So far the owner is concerned, his case was. that the deceased was not a passenger having travelled in the truck in question and further no fare was charged by the driver from her. Not only this, he further went on to the extent of saying that the truck in question did not meet with the accident as alleged and while doing so, it was also pleaded that the truck way not being driven by the driver in a rash and negligent manner. So far the insurer is concerned, its plea was that the liability in respect of passengers in a goods carrier is not covered in terms of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as under the policy of insurance. It was further pleaded that no liability is attached to -he insurer in such a situation because its liability is limited.

(3.) Claimants filed rejoinders to the replies of owner as well as insurer and the parties went to trial on the following issues :1. Whether the death of deceased Km. Sunita Devi was caused due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of respondent No. 1? ...OPP.2. In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative to what amount of compensation, the petitioners are entitled and from whom ? ...OPP.3. Whether the respondent No. 3 is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioners as claimed in the additional pleas raised by it in its reply ? ...O.P.R-3.4. Relief.